All who were vying for the Throne died

[Ser Hedge]

On 5/26/2019 at 1:18 AM, Areisius said:

It's like watching a tournament and in the final the 2 competitors knock each other out and a spectator claims the crown. What in the actual fuck did we just watch!

There was absolutely 0 build up for it, characteristic of the horrible writing.

Bran was the first victim of the game of thrones that we see on screen/page, murdered (attemptedly) to preserve Cersei's status of Queen and for the legitimacy of her children. A better writer might have tried something with that to play into the bittersweet theme, but yeah, the way they showed it .....

Bran constantly going I'm not Lord Stark was just a trick then? duh 

And his homebase secedes ........ seriously?

If you keep the North in, and if uncle Edmure and cousin Arryn of the Vale vote for him, then with Tyrion of Casterly Rock that makes 4 votes. If we stretch it to Gendry's legitimization being recognized by most of the Stormlands (say he's the spitting image of a young Robert), you get to 5 and the others going along with it might kind of work if it had been done less comically.

That small cast of characters on stage voting for King and everyone going along with their choice even after Sansa secedes 

[beeeeeen]

It's funny how some peoples are seeing something that is not in the show and then accuse the writers of not well establishing it...
It's never implied that Bran manipulated everybody in order to be king, nor it's implied that he knew for a long time he would be king, it's only implied that he knew he would be given the crown before coming to the gathering in King's Landing...

[Kajjo]

As far as we know Bran can not greensight the future. He might have some flash visions about the future. Bran explicitly talks about seeing the past, not the future.

Bran's quote "What do you think I came all this way for?" is difficult to interpret. Maybe he just means to contribute whatever he can, maybe he really schemed to become the King. It is open. There is no conclusive answer to this question.

 

[Areisius]

13 hours ago, beeeeeen said:

It's funny how some peoples are seeing something that is not in the show and then accuse the writers of not well establishing it...
It's never implied that Bran manipulated everybody in order to be king, nor it's implied that he knew for a long time he would be king, it's only implied that he knew he would be given the crown before coming to the gathering in King's Landing...

We aren't seeing anything, we're in fact seeing nothing. That is the problem with the writing not the viewer.

[beeeeeen]

6 minutes ago, Areisius said:

We aren't seeing anything, we're in fact seeing nothing. That is the problem with the writing not the viewer.

no, some people are really certain that Bran has manipulated everybody to become king... this is not your case? good! but then i was not talking about you.

[Areisius]

27 minutes ago, beeeeeen said:

no, some people are really certain that Bran has manipulated everybody to become king... this is not your case? good! but then i was not talking about you.

They made him into a great manipulator because everyone important died for the throne only for some nobody (literally nobody knew about him besides his family) to become king.  

[beeeeeen]

1 minute ago, Areisius said:

They made him into a great manipulator because everyone important died for the throne only for some nobody (literally nobody knew about him besides his family) to become king.  

So, a couple of minutes ago you were not seeing any manipulation from Bran, and now you are seeing it? a bit contradictory isn't it?
Anyway, you think that, because he became king in the end, everything that happened in the story is his fault? that's like saying Aragorn is the one who manipulated everyone in the Lord of the Ring so he could become king of the Gondor...
I admit him being chosen as the king was done a bit clumsily but it was a logical step. Bran was chosen because he no longer has any personnal ambition, and Tyrion saw how personnal ambitions corrupt peoples, and he was also chosen because he is the memory of mankind.
I understand that you don't like it because it's not something you had foreseen, neither had i, and Bran is not the character you were supporting, i wasn't either, but don't forget that one of the main thematics of Game of Thrones, if not THE main thematic, was the legitimacy of power. And the show made a point, several times, to tell us that birth right, and ambitions are the worst reasons to become a ruler. In the end, Bran getting the crown is the most fitting ending.
 

[CrypticWeirwood]

32 minutes ago, beeeeeen said:

 And the show made a point, several times, to tell us that birth right, and ambitions are the worst reasons to become a ruler. In the end, Bran getting the crown is the most fitting ending.

That's why casual watchers feel so ripped off. Jon had the best birth right and Dany had the most unstoppable ambition, so they're super pissed off that wasn't who the rulers were in the end. Plus Dany worked so very very hard yet what did it get her? She lost everything she ever cared about. 

And even if there's now a Targaryen king beyond the wall, his dragon died and nobody but his closest kith and kin knows about it and he wears no crown. 

This just isn't the way heroes are supposed to win, especially when the apparent winners are their pansy siblings instead. 

Very tough on the testosterone rages. 

[beeeeeen]

2 minutes ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

That's why casual watchers feel so ripped off. Jon had the best birth right and Dany had the most unstoppable ambition, so they're super pissed off that wasn't who the rulers were in the end. Plus Dany worked so very very hard yet what did it get her? She lost everything she ever cared about. 

And even if there's now a Targaryen king beyond the wall, his dragon died and nobody but his closest kith and kin knows about it and he wears no crown. 

This just isn't the way heroes are supposed to win, especially when the apparent winners are their pansy siblings instead. 

Very tough on the testosterone rages. 

If i understand well, you are agreeing with me, aren't you? (english is not my language, so i am not totally sure)

[CrypticWeirwood]

Just now, beeeeeen said:

If i understand well, you are agreeing with me, aren't you? (english is not my language, so i am not totally sure)

Yes, I am agreeing with you.

[beeeeeen]

1 minute ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

Yes, I am agreeing with you.

cool then! i understand english well enough, but when there is somekind of a sarcastic tone, then i tend to doubt about what i'm supposed to understand

[CrypticWeirwood]

Just now, beeeeeen said:

cool then! i understand english well enough, but when there is somekind of a sarcastic tone, then i tend to doubt about what i seem to understand

"Kith and kin" is an old, old way of referring to "friends and family". 

[beeeeeen]

1 minute ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

"Kith and kin" is an old, old way of referring to "friends and family". 

thanks, i didn't know that!... well i knew for "kin" but not for "kith" but i had guessed it had to mean something like that

[Deminelle]

2 hours ago, Areisius said:

They made him into a great manipulator because everyone important died for the throne only for some nobody (literally nobody knew about him besides his family) to become king.  

Well, the thing is that it's not unreasonable for a viewer to think that way when we are given the idea that Bran sees visions in the past and future and his lines and actions support the events that lead to this outcome.

Of course, he could just be the one responsible person in the end who has to take it. How do we know then? Either believe in common sense telling us he wasn't a manipulator or believe that we were given clues? Or blame the bad writing?

Or is it genius writing?

[Praecautus]

To be honest it was something I was thinking about after I read the spoilers and had not considered at all through series 1-7.

There are theories based on the books that the children of the forest are up to something and that Bran may be the end game of that. I like that idea and maybe I am wanting to see it in the show, the writing is open (being generous for season 8) to allow me believe that to be true.

[Ser Hedge]

3 hours ago, CrypticWeirwood said:

That's why casual watchers feel so ripped off. Jon had the best birth right and Dany had the most unstoppable ambition, so they're super pissed off that wasn't who the rulers were in the end. Plus Dany worked so very very hard yet what did it get her? She lost everything she ever cared about. 

And even if there's now a Targaryen king beyond the wall, his dragon died and nobody but his closest kith and kin knows about it and he wears no crown. 

This just isn't the way heroes are supposed to win, especially when the apparent winners are their pansy siblings instead. 

Very tough on the testosterone rages. 

Well, that is probably one segment of disappointed viewers. But the way the second half of the episode was portrayed, it was tough on the cognitive part of the brain as well. If Dany had burnt every single great keep across Westeros (or if the NK got half of them) and those assembled in the Dragonpit are literally all the nobility of Westeros left, then yeah that might work.

We started the show with a universe rich in detail, which made it fascinating, but seemed to just limp into oblivion at the end. How did Bron and Gendry gain the support of their regions? Esp when Gendry was appointed by Dany. (I'm not saying it's not possible, but everything was skipped, rushed, hand waved) Are there literally no other lords left in the land? We see a few at the council, a couple of Reach lords presumably and the Prince of Dorne, but then why are there just two Reach Lords? This is the most populous region that once boosted a sea of chivalry? Did they all die when Jamie and Tarly attacked Highgarden? Were they in Baelor Sept. Even if they were, there is always a heir who wasn't. 

One moment Davos goes the Reach is underpopulated (errr .... why?), the next he and Tyrion are begging Bron to give them money for the ships, since the Reach is the richest region. Oh and Edmure Tully is a comic now, great. The real problem is we started with one kind of show and ended with something else entirely. Bran as King per se is not the main problem, but maybe (sadly) a target for all the lazy, inept writing bereft of a feel for the universe we got in the end. 

[It_spelt_Magalhaes]

36 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

Well, that is probably one segment of disappointed viewers. But the way the second half of the episode was portrayed, it was tough on the cognitive part of the brain as well. If Dany had burnt every single great keep across Westeros (or if the NK got half of them) and those assembled in the Dragonpit are literally all the nobility of Westeros left, then yeah that might work.

We started the show with a universe rich in detail, which made it fascinating, but seemed to just limp into oblivion at the end. How did Bron and Gendry gain the support of their regions? Esp when Gendry was appointed by Dany. (I'm not saying it's not possible, but everything was skipped, rushed, hand waved) Are there literally no other lords left in the land? We see a few at the council, a couple of Reach lords presumably and the Prince of Dorne, but then why are there just two Reach Lords? This is the most populous region that once boosted a sea of chivalry? Did they all die when Jamie and Tarly attacked Highgarden? Were they in Baelor Sept. Even if they were, there is always a heir who wasn't. 

One moment Davos goes the Reach is underpopulated (errr .... why?), the next he and Tyrion are begging Bron to give them money for the ships, since the Reach is the richest region. Oh and Edmure Tully is a comic now, great. The real problem is we started with one kind of show and ended with something else entirely. Bran as King per se is not the main problem, but maybe (sadly) a target for all the lazy, inept writing bereft of a feel for the universe we got in the end. 

Err, I don't  get it?

People come here and complain aboit how 'show only' fans don't get the intrincacies of the work that originated it.

Yeah, because there are parts of it that simply don't make sense on their own?

Where on the show are Bran's greenseer abilities explored until it's a set conclusion that he truly has no ambition?

He has so?

In a world building exercise that repeatedly shows the negatives of human nature, we should take him at his word?

Fine, lets do that.

Lets also accept the fact that this is like an after game discussion. Can the fans not discuss what they've seen?

Are people not allowed an opinion, even if it's just an emotion based response?

And again, not about which characters 'win', that'd be a misnomer in this established 'verse.

We've been conditioned, as an audience of this story, to look for clues, hints, world building that explains the direction characters take.

Even then there's plenty of chaotic influences, mythology, random chance, human nature, too many factors to simply 'predict' a character's arc.

If it were an easy, straight forward narrative, the books wouldn’t have gotten traction.

So if I want to joke around on the possibility that there's more than an 'ambition screws you over' lesson?

And even should that 'be' the allegory: Bran as an impartial decisor with more information available than anyone before him?

Is it wrong to complain that, as told in the show, his journey isn't clear? He studied with a mystic, touching a tree. Tada.

You can't truly fault show only viewers for missing the cues you get from the books.

Or do you really think only people grounded on the books can wacth the show to any true understanding?

If you are, then you made our point for all of us ranting about the show.

That's why I agree with you, following the previous discussion.

The show hides more than it explains the longer it goes on into the later seasons.

Could it be they gambled that show only viewers would not care, and book readers already had the information necessary to explain their leaps on the characters' journeys to the story's final conclusion?

In that case?

Epic fail.

[Areisius]

7 hours ago, Deminelle said:

Well, the thing is that it's not unreasonable for a viewer to think that way when we are given the idea that Bran sees visions in the past and future and his lines and actions support the events that lead to this outcome.

Of course, he could just be the one responsible person in the end who has to take it. How do we know then? Either believe in common sense telling us he wasn't a manipulator or believe that we were given clues? Or blame the bad writing?

Or is it genius writing?

You're giving D&D way too much credit. They have proven themselves to be utterly incompetent to carry a series with no source material to draw on for the first time. 

[Deminelle]

Just now, Areisius said:

You're giving D&D way too much credit. They have proven themselves to be utterly incompetent to carry a series with no source material to draw on for the first time. 

Well it was a bit sarcastic remark. If they intended to leave everyone confused, they succeeded.

[Ser Hedge]

3 hours ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

Err, I don't  get it?

People come here and complain aboit how 'show only' fans don't get the intrincacies of the work that originated it.

Yeah, because there are parts of it that simply don't make sense on their own?

Where on the show are Bran's greenseer abilities explored until it's a set conclusion that he truly has no ambition?

He has so?

In a world building exercise that repeatedly shows the negatives of human nature, we should take him at his word?

Fine, lets do that.

Lets also accept the fact that this is like an after game discussion. Can the fans not discuss what they've seen?

Are people not allowed an opinion, even if it's just an emotion based response?

And again, not about which characters 'win', that'd be a misnomer in this established 'verse.

We've been conditioned, as an audience of this story, to look for clues, hints, world building that explains the direction characters take.

Even then there's plenty of chaotic influences, mythology, random chance, human nature, too many factors to simply 'predict' a character's arc.

If it were an easy, straight forward narrative, the books wouldn’t have gotten traction.

So if I want to joke around on the possibility that there's more than an 'ambition screws you over' lesson?

And even should that 'be' the allegory: Bran as an impartial decisor with more information available than anyone before him?

Is it wrong to complain that, as told in the show, his journey isn't clear? He studied with a mystic, touching a tree. Tada.

You can't truly fault show only viewers for missing the cues you get from the books.

Or do you really think only people grounded on the books can wacth the show to any true understanding?

If you are, then you made our point for all of us ranting about the show.

That's why I agree with you, following the previous discussion.

The show hides more than it explains the longer it goes on into the later seasons.

Could it be they gambled that show only viewers would not care, and book readers already had the information necessary to explain their leaps on the characters' journeys to the story's final conclusion?

In that case?

Epic fail.

Yeah, I do agree with you.

 I actually think they stopped caring about book fans a long time ago anyway, but let's leave that aside.

As you say the show does not stand up on its own and that is the main problem. The world that was carefully built up in the first few seasons (without any reference to the books being necessary) was completely and wilfully ignored to get a quick ending with some big visuals. Anything too complicated was just left open. As you say, it hides more than it explains.